Jennings v. Reynolds
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from, Douglas Qounty. The facts of this case are similar to those in the pre-' ceding case of Reynolds v. McKinney — both having grown out of the same transaction, and this presenting “the other horn of the dilemma.”
Read the full summary
Error from, Douglas Qounty. The facts of this case are similar to those in the pre-' ceding case of Reynolds v. McKinney — both having grown out of the same transaction, and this presenting “the other horn of the dilemma.” This action was brought after the garnishment by McKinney. it was submitted: There was no evidence on the trial, and no finding as to who was electéd governor; nothing was known as to the result of the election bet upon, the 'official canvass not having taken place. The bet was an illegal contract, and executory, and the plaintiff might recover back from the defendant at…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Bailey, J.
In this case, money, deposited in the hands of a third person — the defendant in error — by two persons *114making a Tbet on the result, of an election then pending for governor of this state, was, Before the election was decided, demanded By one of the depositors — the plaintiff in error — and refused to Be paid over.
As we have'held in the cognate case of Reynolds v. McKinney, the money in the hands of a stakeholder, Betting on elections Being prohibited By statute, must Be deemed a mere naked deposit, liaBle to Be reclaimed and recovered By each depositor, on demand. The…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Cleveland v. WolffSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871